You have a great camera that will always be better than you. You are like a guy at the urinals getting dick envy yet you have one of the hottest girls at your table. Forget the D850 (or get one and forget the 5D MkIV) and just get out and take pictures with it, who gives a darn what somebody else's camera feature set might be?

Absolutely spot on!

Also, we should count ourselves very lucky that Nikon and Sony continue to innovate and provide a real competition for Canon (and each other), without which there would be far less incentive for Canon (or the other companies) to innovate.

that's a little false. to sell new cameras, canon or any company has to come up with reasons for you to buy said new camera.

products march on regardless of competition unless you are in a business that lives by recurring revenue streams.

You have a great camera that will always be better than you. You are like a guy at the urinals getting dick envy yet you have one of the hottest girls at your table. Forget the D850 (or get one and forget the 5D MkIV) and just get out and take pictures with it, who gives a darn what somebody else's camera feature set might be?

Absolutely spot on!

Also, we should count ourselves very lucky that Nikon and Sony continue to innovate and provide a real competition for Canon (and each other), without which there would be far less incentive for Canon (or the other companies) to innovate.

that's a little false. to sell new cameras, canon or any company has to come up with reasons for you to buy said new camera.

products march on regardless of competition unless you are in a business that lives by recurring revenue streams.

That's so buying into the marketing department of camera manufacturers... Canon included

If you just [buy a ILC | upgrade your ILC | upgrade to a pro ILC | upgrade to this new ILC] your photos will be so much better!!! See, here are some sample photos of what's possible, if only you had this camera. Don't you wish you could take pictures like this? You can!

Personally, I think that as technically amazing as the D850 sounds, it's actually a very tiny improvement upon the D810 in terms of "could I take a better shot if I had a D850 instead of a D810"? For all of those wonderful sample photos -- not to mention award winning photography -- the constraint is not the incremental features built into the latest camera body.

But privatebydesign's point was just that if you have a semi-recent DSLR, you probably already have a super-amazing tool, and don't need a better camera body to produce amazing photography that would knock the socks off of anyone looking at your finished product. People who think otherwise probably would be much better served by getting out, taking pictures, figuring out what could make them better, and then working on those aspects.

Photography as a hobby is not just about the final outcome but also about the fun while doing it.Most improvements in a camera do not allow you to take photos that were impossible before, but make taking difficult photos easier (e.g. in-camera HDR, in-camera focus stacking, better dynamic range to get a shot in one exposure instead of two) or more reliable (e.g. better AF, higher frame rate) and might push those photos above your personal "fun threshold".While a camera without a tilting screen can take very low angle shots, you have to lie in the mud to do it (or aim blindly) and therefore rarely do it. A tilting screen allows you to get those shots easily.But the shots used for marketing are often not the shots where the camera would really make a difference. Ergonomic and workflow improvements are difficult to show.

While a camera without a tilting screen can take very low angle shots, you have to lie in the mud to do it (or aim blindly) and therefore rarely do it. A tilting screen allows you to get those shots easily.

You're forgetting one thing. With wireless support you can view and take shots using your cellphone. Yes, it's not as straightforward as using a tilty screen (especially with the iPhone which doesn't have NFC support and is more of a pain to connect than Android) but it's significantly more flexible.

Photography as a hobby is not just about the final outcome but also about the fun while doing it.Most improvements in a camera do not allow you to take photos that were impossible before, but make taking difficult photos easier (e.g. in-camera HDR, in-camera focus stacking, better dynamic range to get a shot in one exposure instead of two) or more reliable (e.g. better AF, higher frame rate) and might push those photos above your personal "fun threshold".While a camera without a tilting screen can take very low angle shots, you have to lie in the mud to do it (or aim blindly) and therefore rarely do it. A tilting screen allows you to get those shots easily.But the shots used for marketing are often not the shots where the camera would really make a difference. Ergonomic and workflow improvements are difficult to show.

I largely agree with you. In fact, aside from my recent 6DII purchase (because I wanted FF), I generally, I buy new modern cameras for non-top-line features that just make it so that I enjoy photography more.

But still, privatebydesign's point holds: my 80D, 70D, t6s... even t2i... really are capable of taking better pictures than my skills permit. Most of what makes a photo great isn't being able to catch more frames or capture a little more gamut, or even less graininess. It's composition, lighting, understanding your subject, and knowing what you want as your finished product, and what you need to get there.

To take an example, the hobby part of photography for me is birding. To catch a good shot of a bird in flight, you can have 20 fps, a screen full of AF points and tons of DR and miss the bird entirely, get a bunch of grey blobs, or lose all of the definition in its whites, have awful water reflections... any number of things can go wrong.

Improving my photography throughout the years has been learning to know the signs of when a particular bird is about to take off or give me a good action shot, what kind of exposure is ideal, and even what time of day or what time of year at a particular location will give me the best results. When I should use a polarizer, when I absolutely need to crank shutter as oozed to the types of gliding that afford me higher ISO; when handheld works best, and when to use a gimbal.

The professional aspects of photography for me are products and dioramas. Studio lighting and composition have a pretty crazy steep learning curve, and the difference is awesome looking photos versus very amateurish output. I assure you, I could use a t2i and get beautiful shots. Whether displayed on the web or printed to a A4 glossy spread in a magazine, nobody would be able to tell what camera I used -- nor would they care. .

None of that really has anything to do with equipment, and none of the deficiencies of knowledge can really be solved by cool new gear.

While a camera without a tilting screen can take very low angle shots, you have to lie in the mud to do it (or aim blindly) and therefore rarely do it. A tilting screen allows you to get those shots easily.

You're forgetting one thing. With wireless support you can view and take shots using your cellphone. Yes, it's not as straightforward as using a tilty screen (especially with the iPhone which doesn't have NFC support and is more of a pain to connect than Android) but it's significantly more flexible.

The same argument then applies to the wireless connection (being a helpful feature which makes specific photos much easier).But for situations where a tilting screen is sufficient (compared to wireless connection) I see it as far superior and much faster. Getting a quick spontaneous overhead shot of some event is almost impossible if you first have to pull out your phone, unlock it, connect it, aim and zoom with one hand (with big flash unit attached to camera for additional weight). On a tripod handling an additional phone is a little bit easier, but even then I prefer to have a free second hand to handle the dials and the camera working independently from my phone (e.g. camera not turning off when the screen on the phone is locked). Wireless might be a nice addition, but it is definitely not a full-fledged replacement for a tilting screen.

But still, privatebydesign's point holds: my 80D, 70D, t6s... even t2i... really are capable of taking better pictures than my skills permit. Most of what makes a photo great isn't being able to catch more frames or capture a little more gamut, or even less graininess. It's composition, lighting, understanding your subject, and knowing what you want as your finished product, and what you need to get there.

To take an example, the hobby part of photography for me is birding. To catch a good shot of a bird in flight, you can have 20 fps, a screen full of AF points and tons of DR and miss the bird entirely, get a bunch of grey blobs, or lose all of the definition in its whites, have awful water reflections... any number of things can go wrong.

Improving my photography throughout the years has been learning to know the signs of when a particular bird is about to take off or give me a good action shot, what kind of exposure is ideal, and even what time of day or what time of year at a particular location will give me the best results. When I should use a polarizer, when I absolutely need to crank shutter as oozed to the types of gliding that afford me higher ISO; when handheld works best, and when to use a gimbal.

The professional aspects of photography for me are products and dioramas. Studio lighting and composition have a pretty crazy steep learning curve, and the difference is awesome looking photos versus very amateurish output. I assure you, I could use a t2i and get beautiful shots. Whether displayed on the web or printed to a A4 glossy spread in a magazine, nobody would be able to tell what camera I used -- nor would they care. .

None of that really has anything to do with equipment, and none of the deficiencies of knowledge can really be solved by cool new gear.

This is of course all valid. I didn't doubt that a good camera is not a replacement for skill and experience, especially when it comes to composition, lighting or guessing what specific subjects (animals, people) will do.If you know what you do, even a cheap camera is sufficient for good results, but it's usually not as much fun.I just didn't like the apparent "Don't improve camera as long as you can still improve your skill in some area." consensus.

While a camera without a tilting screen can take very low angle shots, you have to lie in the mud to do it (or aim blindly) and therefore rarely do it. A tilting screen allows you to get those shots easily.

You're forgetting one thing. With wireless support you can view and take shots using your cellphone. Yes, it's not as straightforward as using a tilty screen (especially with the iPhone which doesn't have NFC support and is more of a pain to connect than Android) but it's significantly more flexible.

The same argument then applies to the wireless connection (being a helpful feature which makes specific photos much easier).But for situations where a tilting screen is sufficient (compared to wireless connection) I see it as far superior and much faster. Getting a quick spontaneous overhead shot of some event is almost impossible if you first have to pull out your phone, unlock it, connect it, aim and zoom with one hand (with big flash unit attached to camera for additional weight). On a tripod handling an additional phone is a little bit easier, but even then I prefer to have a free second hand to handle the dials and the camera working independently from my phone (e.g. camera not turning off when the screen on the phone is locked). Wireless might be a nice addition, but it is definitely not a full-fledged replacement for a tilting screen.

But still, privatebydesign's point holds: my 80D, 70D, t6s... even t2i... really are capable of taking better pictures than my skills permit. Most of what makes a photo great isn't being able to catch more frames or capture a little more gamut, or even less graininess. It's composition, lighting, understanding your subject, and knowing what you want as your finished product, and what you need to get there.

To take an example, the hobby part of photography for me is birding. To catch a good shot of a bird in flight, you can have 20 fps, a screen full of AF points and tons of DR and miss the bird entirely, get a bunch of grey blobs, or lose all of the definition in its whites, have awful water reflections... any number of things can go wrong.

Improving my photography throughout the years has been learning to know the signs of when a particular bird is about to take off or give me a good action shot, what kind of exposure is ideal, and even what time of day or what time of year at a particular location will give me the best results. When I should use a polarizer, when I absolutely need to crank shutter as oozed to the types of gliding that afford me higher ISO; when handheld works best, and when to use a gimbal.

The professional aspects of photography for me are products and dioramas. Studio lighting and composition have a pretty crazy steep learning curve, and the difference is awesome looking photos versus very amateurish output. I assure you, I could use a t2i and get beautiful shots. Whether displayed on the web or printed to a A4 glossy spread in a magazine, nobody would be able to tell what camera I used -- nor would they care. .

None of that really has anything to do with equipment, and none of the deficiencies of knowledge can really be solved by cool new gear.

This is of course all valid. I didn't doubt that a good camera is not a replacement for skill and experience, especially when it comes to composition, lighting or guessing what specific subjects (animals, people) will do.If you know what you do, even a cheap camera is sufficient for good results, but it's usually not as much fun.I just didn't like the apparent "Don't improve camera as long as you can still improve your skill in some area." consensus.

The way I would put it is: if you want to improve there are likely better things to spend money on than a new camera, like lessons and classes. Also, a new camera isn't do much to improve your photography if you aren't willing to spend the time to needed improve your photography.

Photography as a hobby is not just about the final outcome but also about the fun while doing it.Most improvements in a camera do not allow you to take photos that were impossible before, but make taking difficult photos easier

Agreed. I moved from 60D to 70D because I was having difficulty photographing birds. Though I tried every suggestion I could find to address the problem, I could not get consistent results. The 70D's IQ and feature set are not that much better than the 60D, but the improvement with birds has been huge -- within just a few weeks I was getting consistent, predictable results, and was enjoying the process again. If I go for a bird walk on a cloudy day I know the results will not be great, but at least they are consistent and predictable. I can enjoy the walk and accept the photos for what they are.

I've thought of getting a refurb 80D during one of the sales, but I'm not sure it would help me enjoy photography more. I may wait a while and get a refurb 6D2....or wait longer and keep enjoying my 70D.

You have a great camera that will always be better than you. You are like a guy at the urinals getting dick envy yet you have one of the hottest girls at your table. Forget the D850 (or get one and forget the 5D MkIV) and just get out and take pictures with it, who gives a darn what somebody else's camera feature set might be?

Absolutely spot on!

Also, we should count ourselves very lucky that Nikon and Sony continue to innovate and provide a real competition for Canon (and each other), without which there would be far less incentive for Canon (or the other companies) to innovate.

that's a little false. to sell new cameras, canon or any company has to come up with reasons for you to buy said new camera.

products march on regardless of competition unless you are in a business that lives by recurring revenue streams.

That's so buying into the marketing department of camera manufacturers... Canon included

If you just [buy a ILC | upgrade your ILC | upgrade to a pro ILC | upgrade to this new ILC] your photos will be so much better!!! See, here are some sample photos of what's possible, if only you had this camera. Don't you wish you could take pictures like this? You can!

Personally, I think that as technically amazing as the D850 sounds, it's actually a very tiny improvement upon the D810 in terms of "could I take a better shot if I had a D850 instead of a D810"? For all of those wonderful sample photos -- not to mention award winning photography -- the constraint is not the incremental features built into the latest camera body.

But privatebydesign's point was just that if you have a semi-recent DSLR, you probably already have a super-amazing tool, and don't need a better camera body to produce amazing photography that would knock the socks off of anyone looking at your finished product. People who think otherwise probably would be much better served by getting out, taking pictures, figuring out what could make them better, and then working on those aspects.

I think this is why Canon has been "so slow" do adapt to the latest sensor technology. Canon has correctly identified the user experience as the most important feature in a camera and they've gone and put touchscreens and DPAF on everything, and the latest step is Low Power Blutooth for browsing photos without fiddling with the camera.

FWIW, I've gotten moire before on bird feathers...................................using a 5D3.

I have not used the 5DSR in nature at this point, but elsewhere I haven't had any issues with moire using that camera. I suppose that if you get it with the R, you'll also get it on a filtered camera like the 5D4 (although granted, the R will show it worse - sometimes significantly so).

Updating this to say I ran into my first instance of (noticeable) moire with the 5DSR a few days ago - on a striped jacket of all things. With a little work, however, it cleaned up nicely in Lightroom, can't even notice it was there in the first place.

Even with that "incident", I think the tradeoff for crisper images is worth it. I've actually spent more PP time on selective sharpening with certain images from the M6/5D4, FWIW...

With dual pixels, the left one is throwing away the photons from the right and the right one is throwing away the pixel from the left. 5Ds should not have dual pixels and may may not have video but high iso level for low light photographies.

If is has dual pixel, I want to get my old Horizontal Split Image. The Focusing Screen has done the exact photon selection, the dual pixels are doing as described above.

With dual pixels, the left one is throwing away the photons from the right and the right one is throwing away the pixel from the left. 5Ds should not have dual pixels and may may not have video but high iso level for low light photographies.

If is has dual pixel, I want to get my old Horizontal Split Image. The Focusing Screen has done the exact photon selection, the dual pixels are doing as described above.

I don't think 5DSR will skip dual pixel, because Canon has put it into everything these days. However, I would welcome this, if it gives meaningful improvements to the shot. Nearly all my live view focusing is done with MF anyways.